Truth Magazine

By Jeff Belknap

In the beginning of Matthew 23, the Lord commended much of the Pharisee’s teaching. However, in verse 24, he draws attention to one of their major flaws. It was their ironic ability to consume whole camels, while simultaneously possessing the talent to “strain” even the smallest defilement. 

We today, as the Pharisees of old, can swallow camels of magnanimous proportions in failing to rightly divide the truth, by (mis)using one divinely inspired passage to contradict another. 

The focus of this article is to compare what Paul has written in Romans 14 with various other New Testament Scriptures. These comparisons provide several compelling reasons that Romans 14 cannot involve matters of immorality and/or fallacious doctrine!

Camel #1: Receive Ye vs. Receive Him Not

In Romans 14:1, the brethren were commanded to receive one another, in spite of their differences. However, in numerous other places we are charged not to “receive” the immoral, or those in doctrinal error. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:9, that we are “not to company with fornicators” (cf.  1 Cor. 6:9,10; Heb. 13:4). Does Romans 14 include the reception of homosexuals or those living in adultery? What about those who do not teach “the doctrine of Christ”? In 2 John 9-11, John commanded that we “receive him not,” lest we be a “partaker of his evil deeds” (cf. Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10). 

Camel #2: No Disputations vs. Disputation/Disputing

Romans 14:1 instructed Christians to “receive” one another despite dissimilar views in matters of opinion, and prohibited them from disputations regarding these things. However, elsewhere in Scripture, we learn that we must “dispute” with our brethren over doctrinal error! In Acts 15:2 when men sought to bind circumcision, “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them” (Acts 15:7; 19:8).

Camel #3: No Judging vs. Judge

In Romans 14 (vv. 3, 4, 10, 13), the Romans were instructed not to judge (condemn) one another! However, we are commanded to judge (condemn) immorality and false doctrine! In 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13 Paul wrote: “. . . do not ye judge them that are within? . . . Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Not only were the Corinthians to condemn adultery; they were to exclude it from their fellowship. The same was true concerning those who taught error regarding the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:33ff). The difference is clear! In matters of indifference to God, we are not to judge (Rom. 12:16)! Yet, when it comes to divine law, we must judge and discipline brethren who walk disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6, 14). 

Camel #4: God Hath Received Him vs. Reception Is Conditional

Paul said, “God hath received” the individuals in Romans 14:3. From this passage, some contend that God will receive the immoral person and teachers of error! Yet, God’s reception of us is dependent upon our walking in the light (1 John 1:6-7). In 2 Corin- thians 6:14-18, he says, “. . . touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” Furthermore, Galatians 1:6-9 says that men are “removed” from God for preaching a perverted gospel. 

Camel #5: God Will Make Him Stand vs. Standing Is Conditional

From Romans 14:4, we can conclude that the text is referring only to lawful activities, since Paul says that “God is able to make him stand.”   Contrariwise, the immoral can never “stand” before God. In no uncertain terms, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 says, “Be not deceived: neither fornicators . . . nor adulterers . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.” In 2 Corinthians 10:8-12 we are warned, “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell . . . Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Similarly, will the false teacher “stand” or fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:14; 2 Pet. 3:17)? 

Camel #6: Man Is To Decide vs. God Is To Decide

Who is to decide what’s right and/or wrong in matters of indifference toward God? We are, individually! In Romans 14:5 Paul says, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” In contrast, who is to make decisions as to what is right or wrong in matters of moral and/or doctrinal import? God is! Concerning doctrinal issues, we are to persuade men to comply with the Word (Acts 19:8; 2 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 1:10)! 

Camel #7: Do Unto the Lord vs. No Sinning Unto the Lord

In verse 6 of Romans 14, all is to be done “unto the Lord.” In following God’s commands, as well as in matters of personal conscience, all we do is unto God (Col. 3:23; 1 John 3:20). However, false teaching and disobedience can never be done “unto the Lord”! 

Camel #8: No Stumbling Blocks/Offense vs. A Stumbling Block/Rock of Offense

In Romans 14, we are instructed not to put a stumbling block or offense in our brother’s way (vv. 13, 20, 21)! Yet, in matters of the faith, we preach Christ “a stumbling block” and a “rock of offense” (Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Pet. 2:8). How can we harmonize these Scriptures? Regarding matters of opinion we are to liberally grant concessions, but in matters of the faith we are to make none (Gal. 4:16; Jude 3)!

Camel #9: Nothing Unclean of Itself vs. Unclean Things

Of the things dealt with in Romans 14, nothing was unclean in and of itself (v. 14)! Obviously, this is not the case with fornication and erroneous doctrines. In 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, Paul wrote, “. . . touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5).

Camel #10: Not To Grieve vs. May Grieve People

In the context of personal opinion, we are not to grieve our brother by pressing our private convictions (Rom. 14:15). Yet, the truth (which must be preached) will grieve those who do not want to hear it (Mark 10:17-23; Acts 4:1-2). Brethren, while we must be willing to yield in the context of     Romans 14; at no time can we compromise the will of God to placate men (Gal. 1:10)!

Camel #11: Not About the Kingdom vs. About the Kingdom

Obviously, Romans 14:17 refers to matters of liberty, in its declaration that “the kingdom of God” is not about “meat and drink” (things which do not commend us to God [1 Cor. 8:8-9]). Rather, the King’s dominion deals with things which are decreed in his Word. God imposed no dietary restrictions in the New Testament, and has even given us permission to “regard” a day (Rom. 14:6), if we do so without religious significance (Acts 18:21; 28:17). This is a far cry from taking liberties with his dictates, and fellowshipping doctrinal error.

Camel #12: Make For Peace vs. Fight the Good Fight of Faith

In Romans 14, we are to follow things that make for peace (v. 19)! In other words, we are to allow our        beloved brethren to keep their conscientious scruples. Paul made no attempt to change the “weak” brother’s position in this context, because their difference was of no spiritual consequence! Therefore, peace could prevail, for all things in this context were pure (v. 20)! James 3:17 states, “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable.” We can make no “peace” when brethren hold to a false doctrine, or to immorality (Jer. 6:14)! When it comes to intrusions of God’s command, we must “earnestly contend” for the truth (Prov. 28:4; Jude 3; cf. Luke 12:51).

Camel #13: All Things Are Pure vs. Many Things Impure

In verse 20 of our study, “All things indeed are pure.” Can fornication and doctrinal error be included in this reference (cf. Prov. 30:12)?

Camel #14: Keep This Faith to Yourself vs. Preach the Faith

The faith that Romans 14 deals with is to be kept to ourselves (vv. 22-23)! However, some seek to “wrest” this verse and apply it to matters of “the faith” (2 Pet. 3:16). If such was the case, it would contradict the Lord’s solemn charge to sound out the faith (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; cf. Gal. 1:23; 1 Thess. 1:8). 

My beloved brethren, we must harmonize all Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15) to distinguish the colossal difference between how matters of personal faith (Rom. 14) and matters of the faith (Jude 3) are to be handled, unless we

By Ron Daly

that some of those who are styled conservative or non-institutional, would espouse the philosophy that the “days” of creation were eons of perhaps thousands, millions, or even billions of years, instead of being ordinary days of a twenty-four hour period? The scenario is especially troubling in that those who are propagating and/or accepting this view are academically qualified to know better. They are men in positions of influence, and the sons and daughters of believers are under their tutelage.  

We would like to believe that preachers, elders, professors, and all others would remain true to the God-breathed Scriptures, and teach only what is sustained by the facts. It is difficult to believe that “our” people would fall prey to the modernism, and theological liberalism that many denominations and institutions of higher learning have imbibed. Instead of drinking from the murky waters of pseudo-academia and feasting at the table of men such as Karl Heinrich Graf, Julius Wellhausen, Soren Aaby Kierkegaard, and other rationalists, we should accept the testimony of the men who wrote the sacred text by the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is the only safe ground; it’s the only right ground!

Some are asking “Why all the fuss as to the significance of the word ‘day’ in the Genesis account of creation? What difference does a ‘day’ make?” Others ask, “As long as we agree that God created everything, why can’t we just agree to disagree as to the length of time it took him to do it?” We respond by asking, “If we may agree to disagree over the nature of the days of creation, why can’t we agree to disagree over whether or not God is the actual creator, since the same document provides the answer to both questions?”

In other words, the same Bible that says “In the beginning God created . . .” (Gen. 1:1) also tells us that “. . . in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them . . .” (Exod. 20:11). If it can be understood that God made everything, it can also be understood that he made everything in six literal days! How do we know this? 

Consider

The sacred text does not merely say “there was a day, and another day, etc.” The Spirit through Moses attaches a numeral with the word day (yom). Therefore, we read, “the first day, the second day, the third day,” and so on (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2:2, 3). Not only are the days enumerated, but Moses uses another significant phrase, and it defines the parameters of the time that’s indicated; “there was evening and there was morning, the first day, the second day, the third day, etc.). The statement, “There was evening and there was morning” is a figure called synecdoche (of the part), and is put for a full day, i.e., the beginning and the end of anything is put for the whole of it. Since yom is used with the numeral and is constituted by “evening and morning,” a basic ordinary day of twenty-four hours is meant.

Second, Moses writes in Genesis 1:14, “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.” The Spirit makes a distinction between “days and years,” like he does between “the day from the night.” If the term “day(s)” in the context of Genesis 1 includes thousands, millions, or billions of years, please tell us what the term “years” has reference to! If the “years” are ordinary “years,” the “days” are ordinary “days.” But, if the “days” are eons, the “years” are far too vast for peons! 
Third, in Genesis 2:1-3 it is written, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation”  (Exod. 20:9-11). “Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it” (NRSV). Moses said, “In six days the Lord made the heaven and earth . . . and all that is in them.” Now then, what was the nature of these days?

How long were they? Each of the six days of creation was as long as the seventh day on which God rested (i.e., ceased from his labors)! Each of the six days of creation was as long as the sabbath day that the Israelites were to “remember and keep holy.” 

The Hebrew lexicons that I have concur with the testimony of the Scriptures, as to how the word “day” is used in Genesis 1, and most of them were edited by “theological liberals.” The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:399, says that yom means “a day of twenty four hours.” A Concise Hebrew And Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (130) says “day of 24 hours.” Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (398) says “day as defined by evening and morning.”  
 
Brothers and sisters, we must exercise extreme caution that we do not modify the biblical message in order to accommodate pseudo-science. One person has expressed doubt as to whether or not God could have accomplished the act of creating everything in six literal days! Has he forgotten that the entire Godhead was active in creation, and that God created everything by his word! In Genesis chapter 1, verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, and 24 we have a verbal repetition that Moses uses in describing the wonderful and miraculous work of deity, “And God said . . . and it was so.” This shows that there was a correspondence between God’s word of command and its fulfillment. Oh the power of God’s word. The writer of Hebrews stated, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Heb. 11:3). How can a person who claims to believe the Bible, say that God could not have done what the sacred text says that he did?

What difference does it make whether the days of creation were literal days or eons? If the contextual testimony of Genesis 1 doesn’t matter, if being accurate doesn’t matter, if believing the Bible doesn’t matter, and if correctly interpreting the word of truth doesn’t matter, then it makes no difference at all what one believes and teaches about the days of creation. But if biblical accuracy is pertinent, if believing the Bible is paramount, and if an analysis of the context of Genesis 1 is relevant, then the difference that it makes is the difference between truth and error, right and wrong, division and unity. Oh, what a difference a “day” makes!

P.O. Box 36180, Indianapolis, Indiana 46236-0180 ronniebuster@hotmail.com 

So wrote the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8. I thought of this Scripture when sister Polly Phillips sent me the following letter she received from her husband, brother H.E. Phillips, on her birthday on October 26, 1982. Its words remind us of the strength of human love. Solomon wrote, “Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be condemned” (Song of Solomon 8:6-7). You will witness that love in this letter.

To My Wonderful Wife:

In the early springtime of life our eyes met and started the fires of love which within a year brought us to join hands and hearts in marriage vows, and God joined us together for the rest of our lives.

In the springtime of our lives all the joy, thrills, dreams, ambitions, and love were ours! What more could we ask for?

As the summer came on we were filled with the happiness of young parents, but we faced the hardships, plans, disappointments, anxieties and pain of young parents! We had the complete joy and happiness of sharing ownership of the greatest blessings on earth — our children. They brought us real fulfillment in our lives.

But in the autumn of life we shared an ever greater responsibility: the caring for, training, and loving unpredictable teenagers with their schools, dating, finances, and finally marriages. There were many solemn hours which only we and God shared. The hot sunshine, the blistering winds, and the stormy seas, separated by the periods of refreshing calm, brought us through the adolescent and young adulthood of our beautiful, loving children. They were worth it and a thousand times that much. It was not really bad — it was only the inexperience of two young, concerned, loving parents, who wanted the very best for their children. Because of you they got our best.

Now we walk hand in hand in the beginning of winter. Our steps are slower, the sound of the birds is softer, and the beauty of the sunset is not so brilliant. But we thank God for all the happy memories, and for the many wonderful things we now have.

As the shadows lengthen and we realize that our “three score and ten years” is not far ahead, our hands hold tighter, our love grows stronger, our faith in God is greater, and we rejoice that we have been so blessed with so much so long!

Happy Birthday, 

By Larry Ray Hafley

From Good News (July 9, 2000), the bulletin of the Timberland Drive church in Lufkin, Texas, we extract the following comment on 1 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” 

Convince, rebuke, exhort. I have heard some preachers say this means a man’s preaching should be two-thirds negative and one-third positive. This charge is not a mathematical equation. The context shows the preacher is to address the people’s needs, regardless of how his message is received. Convince them when they need it; rebuke them when they need it; exhort them when they need it. You can’t measure preaching in terms of mathematics, but you can certainly measure it in terms of need (Taken from Common Sense Preaching, Dee Bowman). 

Brother Bowman is correct! Preaching is indeed about the specific need of one’s audience. That is why Peter did not denounce idolatry in Acts 2; it is why Paul did not speak against binding circumcision in his Athenian address in Acts 17. Preaching to an audience’s need explains the tone and tenor of Stephen in Acts 7 and the thread and theme of Paul in Acts 13.

Like brother Bowman, I, too, have “heard some preachers” speak of the “two-thirds, one third” equation. However, when that mathematical measure has been cited, it has not been used to say that an audience’s needs should be ignored. Those who speak of preaching that is “two-thirds negative” generally are refuting the idea that we need to “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.” 

It is in that context, using 2 Timothy 4:2, that we often speak of preaching that is “two-thirds negative and one-third positive.” “I have heard some preachers say” it is too much like the rustic, ruffian spirit of pioneer preachers when we name names (Baptist, Methodist, etc.) and identify denominational doctrines. We have been encouraged to take a less “polemic” approach and not to be “adversarial” and “controversial” in our appeal to truth. I have heard “some preachers say” these things as they (quite negatively, I might add) decry and deride “negative preaching” as that which causes people to “tune out” and “turn us off.” 

When such advice has been given, I, like brother Bowman, “have heard some preachers” show that “two-thirds” of 2 Timothy 4:2 is, “negative,” while only “one third” of it is positive. They form this mathematical equation, not to downplay meeting an audience’s need, but to show that they do greatly err who say that our speech and our preaching must be “positive” and “not negative.” 

The same is true of Jeremiah 1:10. “See I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant.”

When need requires we must “root out . . . pull down       . . . destroy, and . . . throw down.” There is a time “to build, and to plant,” “a time to break down, and a time to build up” (Eccl. 3:3). 

It is only when we hear “some preachers say” that “speaking the truth in love” means that we must avoid “negative preaching,” that we hear preachers rightly observe that “two-thirds” of Jeremiah 1:10 is “negative,” while “one-third” is “positive.” It is only when preaching that roots out, pulls down, destroys, and throws down is castigated as being harmful and contrary to the spirit of godly gospel preaching that we hear “some preachers” speak of the “two-thirds, one-third” equation. 

Preaching that reproves, rebukes, roots out, pulls down, destroys, and throws down is as much needed as is that which builds, plants, and exhorts. If not, God would not have so instructed his holy apostles and prophets. 

(Surely, no one will make comments on this article that are two-thirds negative. If they disagree with it, perhaps they can address my need in a positive fashion.)

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521